PURPOSE: In clinical trials, traditional monitoring methods, paper documentation, and outdated collection systems lead to inaccuracies of study information and inefficiencies in the process. Integrated electronic systems offer an opportunity to collect data in real time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We created a computer software system to collect 13 patient-reported symptomatic adverse events and patient-reported Karnofsky performance status, semi-automated RECIST measurements, and laboratory data, and we made this information available to investigators in real time at the point of care during a phase II lung cancer trial. We assessed data completeness within 48 hours of each visit. Clinician satisfaction was measured. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled, for 721 total visits. At each visit, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflecting toxicity and disease-related symptoms were completed using a dedicated wireless laptop. All PROs were distributed in batch throughout the system within 24 hours of the visit, and abnormal laboratory data were available for review within a median of 6 hours from the time of sample collection. Manual attribution of laboratory toxicities took a median of 1 day from the time they were accessible online. Semi-automated RECIST measurements were available to clinicians online within a median of 2 days from the time of imaging. All clinicians and 88% of data managers felt there was greater accuracy using this system. CONCLUSION: Existing data management systems can be harnessed to enable real-time collection and review of clinical information during trials. This approach facilitates reporting of information closer to the time of events, and improves efficiency, and the ability to make earlier clinical decisions.
PURPOSE: In clinical trials, traditional monitoring methods, paper documentation, and outdated collection systems lead to inaccuracies of study information and inefficiencies in the process. Integrated electronic systems offer an opportunity to collect data in real time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We created a computer software system to collect 13 patient-reported symptomatic adverse events and patient-reported Karnofsky performance status, semi-automated RECIST measurements, and laboratory data, and we made this information available to investigators in real time at the point of care during a phase II lung cancer trial. We assessed data completeness within 48 hours of each visit. Clinician satisfaction was measured. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled, for 721 total visits. At each visit, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflecting toxicity and disease-related symptoms were completed using a dedicated wireless laptop. All PROs were distributed in batch throughout the system within 24 hours of the visit, and abnormal laboratory data were available for review within a median of 6 hours from the time of sample collection. Manual attribution of laboratory toxicities took a median of 1 day from the time they were accessible online. Semi-automated RECIST measurements were available to clinicians online within a median of 2 days from the time of imaging. All clinicians and 88% of data managers felt there was greater accuracy using this system. CONCLUSION: Existing data management systems can be harnessed to enable real-time collection and review of clinical information during trials. This approach facilitates reporting of information closer to the time of events, and improves efficiency, and the ability to make earlier clinical decisions.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Francesco Perrone; Massimo Di Maio; Ermelinda De Maio; Paolo Maione; Alessandro Ottaiano; Matilde Pensabene; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Alessandra Vernaglia Lombardi; Giuseppe Signoriello; Ciro Gallo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Ethan M Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Stephen B Clauser; Lori Minasian; Laura Sit; Ram Chilukuri; Paul Baumgartner; Lauren Rogak; Emily Blauel; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah Bruner Journal: Cancer J Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: M Catherine Pietanza; Kyuichi Kadota; Kety Huberman; Camelia S Sima; John J Fiore; Dyana K Sumner; William D Travis; Adriana Heguy; Michelle S Ginsberg; Andrei I Holodny; Timothy A Chan; Naiyer A Rizvi; Christopher G Azzoli; Gregory J Riely; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert G Maki; David R D'Adamo; Mary L Keohan; Michael Saulle; Scott M Schuetze; Samir D Undevia; Michael B Livingston; Matthew M Cooney; Martee L Hensley; Monica M Mita; Chris H Takimoto; Andrew S Kraft; Anthony D Elias; Bruce Brockstein; Nathalie E Blachère; Mark A Edgar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Li-Xuan Qin; Cristina R Antonescu; Gary K Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Louise Viger; Alexandre Charron; Eric Voog; Christophe Letellier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Thomas J Herzog; Deborah K Armstrong; Mark F Brady; Robert L Coleman; Mark H Einstein; Bradley J Monk; Robert S Mannel; J Tate Thigpen; Sharee A Umpierre; Jeannine A Villella; Ronald D Alvarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Louise Viger; Alexandre Charron; Eric Voog; Olivier Dupuis; Yoann Pointreau; Christophe Letellier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: M C Pietanza; Matthew D Hellmann; John J Fiore; Stephanie Smith-Marrone; Ethan M Basch; Lawrence H Schwartz; Michelle S Ginsberg; Marwan Shouery; Samantha K Newman; Mary Shaw; Lauren J Rogak; Alex E Lash; Patrick Hilden; Mark G Kris Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Ethan Basch; William A Wood; Deborah Schrag; Camelia S Sima; Mary Shaw; Lauren J Rogak; Mark G Kris; Marwan Shouery; Antonia Bennett; Thomas Atkinson; M Catherine Pietanza Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: S A Hayes; M C Pietanza; D O'Driscoll; J Zheng; C S Moskowitz; M G Kris; M S Ginsberg Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Gita Thanarajasingam; Pamela J Atherton; Paul J Novotny; Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Axel Grothey Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Aaron D Falchook; Gregg Tracton; Lori Stravers; Mary E Fleming; Anna C Snavely; Jeanne F Noe; David N Hayes; Juneko E Grilley-Olson; Jared M Weiss; Bryce B Reeve; Ethan M Basch; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-02-18
Authors: C H Li; R R Bies; Y Wang; M R Sharma; S Karovic; L Werk; M J Edelman; A A Miller; E E Vokes; A Oto; M J Ratain; L H Schwartz; M L Maitland Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.689